PPG .... http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/p...er-game/sort/avgPoints/year/2012/seasontype/2 ... opinions? Edit: Seriously though, what sort of opinion are you looking for? Can you asked a more directed question?
In general, it is an effective way to measure, effectiveness. I'm not sure what kind of opinion you are looking for... There really isn't a debate to be had about PER, is there?
Do you consider it a valuable measure of a players impact in a game ? Do you find it to be misleading ? Why is Bynums PER lower than Dalamberts ? I dunno it seems like the discussion of PER can be an interesting Convo.....
Its probably the best all encompassing stat for comparing different players without regard for minutes played and their overall effectiveness. However, (and the article linked above mentions this) it is no measure of a player's total effectiveness, especially defensively. For example, it has no way of measuring someone such as Chuck Hayes ability to play shut down positional defense since there is no stat for that.
Its a helpful measure, but it isn't a be-all, end-all stat. I think Hollinger says the same thing. Dalembert, early in the season, has been more efficient than Bynum (in terms of true shooting, and also less turnovers). So, PER gives him a slight edge for now even though Bynum is obviously a superior player. Wait a few weeks, and things will change.
its overvalued, it doesn't account for defense very well. People literally goto the grave with per on their arguments and forget to look at the things on the court that can't be measured.
I'd have to agree......I mean any measure that has a a player like Dalambert over Bynum is misleading. Especially considering both players play the same position.
1. You will NEVER be able to look at a single stat and be able to tell a player's overall impact on the game. One significant issue with PER is that it is a compilation of stats. So, a player that doesn't put up big numbers but does all of the little things (like defense, space the floor, the pass before the pass, hustle plays, etc.) are underrated. A player like Shane Battier would fit here. However, players that put up crazy stats, particularly shooting efficiency, yet do none of the little things will be overvalued. A player like Kevin Martin would fit here. Also everything is taken on a per minute basis. So, a bench player (or someone who plays the minutes of a bench player) might also be overvalued. Now, this is the part where most disagree but for many players, especially older players like Dalembert don't play 36 minutes a game for a reason. They either can't play with high energy without fouling, they are painfully inconsistent, their effectiveness is highly dependent on matchups, or they lose focus on both ends of the floor after extended play. Carl Landry is a good example of this. He had an extremely high PER his rookie season because he can be a dominant scorer in the paint if he has the right matchup. However, he isn't a good defender and lacks the size to be a great post player playing "star" minutes.
Its a per-minute stat. If you ranked players by points scored per minute, you'll find some guys early in the season who play maybe 20 minutes a game are near the top of the list, ahead of better scorers. But that tends to even out over time. If you understand what you're looking at and how its calculated, it isn't misleading at all. Two months from now, I would expect Bynum's PER to be closer to 23, and Dalembert's will dip down to 16 or 17. Its just too early right now.
One thing PER does very well, it accounts for pace inflated numbers and for volume scorers who don't score efficiently and do little else. Those guys (who we typically think of as overrated by their raw numbers) typically have low-ish PER's.
Well I decided to do a bit more research considering you are making the claim that these stats are skewed due to small sample size. I think you are completely wrong. For their entire careers players such as David Robinson rank 4th all time based upon PER and Olajuwon is ranked 16th. To make matters even worse a player by the name of Tracy Mcgrady is ranked higher than John Stockton, and Moses Malone. Per is junk.
Robinson put up better stats than Hakeem in the regular season. He regularly won that IBM player of the year award. The argument that Hakeem was a greater player than Robinson does not rest on his regular season statistical production, which is all that PER captures. Again, PER is only misleading if you think it can be used as an be-all, end-all stat. Its just one of the things you can look at to assess a player. Also: Bynum has had over a 20 PER for 4 consecutive seasons. Dalembert has averaged around 15 over the last 4 seasons, and never more than 17. The "Oh my god .. Dalembert is a fraction ahead of Bynum in the first 12 games of the season!" is a weak argument against it.
